Incentivise people to help the environment

Telegraph View: The Tories are to be commended for incentivising people to do more to help the environment, rather than penalising them if they do not.

Telegraph View Published: 7:56PM GMT 25 Nov 2009
The Conservatives have shown this week just how sure-footed they have become on green issues, with plans to reward householders with cash vouchers for recycling waste and to offer grants for people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes (which remains by far the most cost-effective way of conserving fossil fuels). Commendably, the Tories appreciate the importance of incentivising people to do more to help the environment, rather than penalising them if they do not. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, argues that "carrots are better than sticks" – which, as our environment columnist Geoffrey Lean has pointed out, even donkeys know to be true, though it seems to be beyond the comprehension of ministers.
Such incentives also chime with the public mood. The amount of household waste that is recycled has increased five-fold in little more than a decade. Most readers of this newspaper are keen recyclers and will welcome the fact that the Tories would reward them for their thrift, rather than punish them with new taxes. Contrast this approach with yesterday's launch by Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, of a report saying that we should cut the number of animals bred for the table by a third. Reducing livestock, it claims, will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will also mean fewer heart attacks, because of the cut in saturated fat consumption.
Brilliant. Why has no one thought of this before? Perhaps because, while there are many sensible ways to go green, wiping out the livestock industry is not one of them. As well as being ruinous for farmers and the landscape, it would be utterly impractical. The number of livestock is dictated by the market for the meat. Arbitrarily cutting the domestic supply by a third will not make people greener – just angrier